A Response [Abstract]

Ethics & International Affairs, Volume 11 (1997)

Responding to the critiques of the four previous authors, Walzer opens with a
statement of the inherent imperfection of any theory of war. He reminds us that
theories are merely frameworks for decisions and cannot provide answers in and
of themselves. Moral decisions in war are especially difficult, for it is often
necessary to choose between equally valid claims. Walzer continues the
discussion of sieges initiated by both Koontz and Boyle and concedes the
validity of Koontz's criticism of inconsistency in his theory of noncombatant
immunity. Addressing the different authors' moral doctrines—Hendrickson's
consequentialism and Koontz's and Boyle's deontology—Walzer argues that it is
better to judge each case individually, weighing both the consequences and
principles, rather than strictly adhere to one moral doctrine, an approach
commended by Smith. Finally, in the search for a perfect just war theory, Walzer
issues a realist reminder that there can be no such thing as a morally perfect
war.